Court Overturns Garissa Miner’s Murder Sentence: Gaps in ‘Last Seen’ Doctrine Exposed

Nairobi Kenya 

In Summary

• The Court of Appeal sitting in Nairobi has overturned a 25-year sentence against a Garissa miner, citing insufficient evidence and procedural gaps.
• The judges ruled that the “doctrine of last seen” alone cannot conclusively establish guilt without corroborating proof.
• The landmark decision exposes weaknesses in prosecutorial reliance on circumstantial evidence in murder trials.

The Court of Appeal sitting in Nairobi has overturned the conviction and 25-year imprisonment of a Garissa miner previously found guilty of murdering his supervisor, in a decision that could reshape how Kenyan courts interpret circumstantial evidence in homicide trials. 

The three-judge bench ruled that the High Court erred in relying solely on the doctrine of last seen — a legal presumption that places the burden on an accused person last seen with a deceased victim to explain the circumstances leading to their death.

ALSO READ: From U.S. Fraud to Nairobi Mansions: The Hidden Trail of Illicit Wealth

The judges held that while the doctrine can support a conviction, it must be backed by cogent, consistent, and corroborative evidence. “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt,” the court stated in its ruling.

ALSO READ: Media Empowered to Champion Safe and Fair Labour Migration in Kenya

Background: A Conviction Under Scrutiny

The miner had been sentenced to 25 years by the Garissa High Court after prosecutors argued he was the last person seen with his supervisor before the latter’s body was found in a shallow pit near a mining site.
Despite his denial and lack of direct forensic links, the trial court convicted him, invoking the “last seen” doctrine as sufficient circumstantial evidence.

His defense team challenged the verdict on appeal, arguing that the High Court’s reasoning was flawed and that the prosecution had failed to meet the legal threshold for murder under Section 203 and 204 of the Penal Code — which require proof of both malice aforethought and direct involvement in the unlawful act.

Court of Appeal: Doctrine Must Be Corroborated

In a detailed judgment, the appellate judges cited precedents such as Republic v E.K.K. [2018] eKLR and Sawe v Republic [2003] KLR 364, where the courts warned against convicting based solely on circumstantial inference.

“The doctrine of last seen is not a rule of law but a rule of evidence,” the court noted, emphasizing that its application must be consistent with Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The ruling added that without supporting evidence; such as eyewitness accounts, forensic analysis, or motive: the doctrine risks collapsing under reasonable doubt.

What This Means Going Forward

The decision reaffirms the growing judicial caution around circumstantial cases, particularly in rural and informal work settings where investigations often rely on hearsay. It signals that courts are demanding higher evidentiary standards to safeguard against wrongful convictions.

For prosecutors, the judgment is a reminder to strengthen investigative rigor before bringing murder charges. For defense lawyers, it reinforces the strategic value of challenging the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence early in the trial process.

In a justice system still rebuilding public trust, the Court of Appeal’s decision stands as both a correction and a caution: that justice demands proof, not presumption.